Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed by OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which made these into a single step.
I’ve written scripts to wrap these, but I won’t provide them here because they don’t handle all of the cases properly. Essentially, my script needs to emulate all of the internal semantics of Fossil’s mv and rm implementations, which they don’t, yet. This is why it’s better for all of the semantics to live inside the same program, so that there is no mismatch. If the justification is possible data destruction, one of the reasons we use a VCS is to hedge against data loss. If a rename or deletion goes bad, you can just roll back, no? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
